LICENSING OFFENCES.

Taranaki Daily News, 22 March 1918, Page 3

LICENSING OFFENCES.

CHAI:GI;S AUAINST A NSW PLYMOITH rUBLICAX. * DELAY IN ADMITTING POMCK. lii tho Magistrate's Court yesterday, before Mr. A. Crooko, «S M, William t.corge Enumy was that, on February o, PJIK, at New Plymouth, being the licensee of the ltoyal Hotel, he did fail without- unnecessary delay to ttfimit tho sub-inspector of police and an Inspector of licensed premises. He wan also charged with, on tho same, date, obstructing the sub-inspcetcr of police and an inspector of licensed premises in tho discharge of ills duty by preventing him from entering' tlu tap-room of bis premises. Sub-Inspector llutton prosecuted, and Mr. A. 11. .lohnjtoae appeared for the defendant, who pleaded not guilty to both charges. Sub-Inspector Kutton, in giving evidence, said on the night of February, 1">, about 0.15, lie went to defendant's hotel, ih company with Sergeant Trehey. Approaching from Devon Street, they saw defendant standing on the footpath talking to some people in a motor car. When he was within a lew yardr. of defendant he (defendant) rushed Into his hotel The police followed, and saw defendant disappear to the left, The door through which he went was banged, and ho (witness) heard a sound like a key being turned iu a lock. At the same time, through a small window in the room, he saw a light go out. Ho stood up on a form in the passage and looked through the window, and saw some persons in the tap-room, >vith glasses iu their hands. There wan a light sliiii'iig Into the room from the liar, the slide into which was open, and a lady was standing behind the bar. Ke called tho sergeants attention to mailers, and he got up and looked through the window. The sergeant then went to another part of the premises. Witness got down and tried the door of the tap-room, which was locked. He knocked loudly and asked admittance in the name of the police. Ho got no response, and he knocked four times and called out each time. After about five minutes the door was opened. Defendant was standing inside. There was one man standing by the slide leading to the bar, and two more—one in each corner of tho room. lie saw through the trap door a light Iu another room, where there were some men, and he subsequently saw Sergeant Trehey there. He asked defendant why the men were In the tap-room, and was told they were boarders lie then asked to Be shown tho bedroom book, at which defendant waxed wroth, au-l said, "No; 1 won't show the bedroom book to anyone. It's my private property." Ho then turned to the men in the room, and asked for their names, and a voice called out. "Tell him nothing," and he.got no reply, lie then went to the door and called Sergeant Tnbey to his assistance. Me heard defendant say to the man slide, "Tell him No. 5." Defendant then went out of the room. He asked the man what defendant, had baid to him, and the man replied, "That's for you to tlnd out." Defendant and Sergeant Trehey came into the room together. The sergeant apparently knew two of the men. One of thorn then gave his name as Cherry, and the other as Ealoum, of Palmerston North. The third man still > refused to give his name and address, and when he was told he was iiable to arrest for refusing, Cherry said the man ♦had been invited in, and was his guest, and could not be arrested. He then again asked defendant to show his bedroom book, and the sergeant urged him to comply. Defendant refused, and turned to his wife and told her not to show the book. Chcry ultimately said the other man's name was Mil!s, and that ho belonged to New Plymouth. The other two men then showed keys, and said they had taken rooms at the hotel. To the magistrate: Mills did not show any key. Continuing, witness said that defendant and Mills seemed under the influence of liquor. He ; could get no satisfaction, and so instructed the i sergeant to make further inquiries. It had been j since found that the three men had slept in the hotel that night. Defendant must have iuiown witness, as he had been cross-examined by him in a court ran:; heard'wom-? time ago, and witness had also had ownsh-n to warn defendant as to his conduct of his house. Cross-exaiidrced by Mr. Johnstone, he said boih police officers were in plain clothes when they visited tiie hotel. He would swear he heard a loci: turned In the dorr. Mr. Johnstone: i'lven If yr-u were told there la no lock on tho door?— There m'gUt be no lock on the door now. Do you know there Is only a Yaie lock on the door?—I dor.'l know what lock is on the door. 1 heard a sound as though the door was ■being locked and. the bolt 3hoL. An argument here followed as to the manner of opening and the sound made by a Yale lock when turned. Continuin•; the crosa-esainlnaikn, the sub-Inspti-Mor said, 'the keys produced by Lherry and Zaioum were rusty keys wiih pieces of s l ring attached, an.i that was why he wanted to see the bedroom bock. Mr. Jolmsloiie h f vc urged that the police not the legal right to demand the produei'on of the bock. The magistrate interrupted Ly saying it was 1 the flrst time h>' had heard such a. claim set un, and he did u-t Thlu i it could be heid tha! when tiie police visited a houd after hours ar.d found man the:-.} vim refused to give their na.!L3s, that they had no right to ask the licensee to produce !i.!> r.00i.:;. Ccnl'mdng, the inspec'or said defendant told him the men wo'-e boarder:* directly he entered ' the tap-room He would \\U be surprised to hear that the man v.hu was sail to live in New Plymouth really belonged to Oakimi. Ik had ' not discovered where the man lived. oergeant TreLey gave c(.::vl;iTatlve evidence, i 7he i:o\i day lu mada further c-nouirisa, and found that the three men had slept at the hots! the previous night. T'j Mr Johnstone: The occurrence took place

the before the >VvV i'lyniouth races. There was a large mimiior of visitors in town They did not \hlt the hold because of that It. was the ciKorn of the police tn visit hotels periodically. He v.is acting under iustruciions i'rt'iii the sub-:iiM(:oct<r. lie thought it probjil.'ll* w'-viui net liv<j int'> the hotel if the licensee had net been seen to rush into the place a.s he uM just as thay approached. To the magistrate: lie thought the subinspector was kept waiting for admission at the tap-room for fully live minutes Continuing, ho said defendant was in an unusually exited condilit.'ii lint night; he had never seen him in su'ii :i stale before. He was der.;nt. In all his experience he had never known a licensee refuse to show his books to the police. The magistrate: It would be a very serious flatter if publicans took tip such an attitude It might be that the police were searching for a criminal, and If n publican refused to show his bo'.»ks he might be guilty of obstructing the c<»ur::e «>f justice. Mr. .lohustt.-:ie''submitted tiierc was no such sugge-lien in the present case. He admitted lite client had acted very unwisely, but lio was evidently very angry at the police interference, and had u mistaken idea of the police duties and rights. IV.i'iimiing, Sergeant Trehey said he visited several other hotels the same evening, and met with no obstruction anywhere else. Mr Johnstone admitted the outline of the enso :.s jviven by the police was practically c vrrc-'t The only point for decision w:>s as to whether the defendant had actuary delayed admitting the inspector. Although it was said he was waiting Ave MimPc-i. he submitted that tu the man waiting outs Me time would seem much longer than it really was. and there was actually no definite evidence on the point.. The place was so constructed' that anyone so desiring could see all th:V, v/as going on In the room, and, as a matter of fact, the police saw all that was goinit r M .--'.lireo men who were boaters In the place having drinks. It must be remembered that tiie publican had ;i duty to satisfy himsilf that i: was the police knoc.ksng admission Anyone might knock and 'ask admission, and if a publican opened to every knock he 'would very soon be in trouble lie submitlcd that Kmcny had opened the door in a reasonable time Defendant cave evidence on the lines of counsel's address. He said one of the three men concerned had called him from inside, and lie had rime into the tap-room wi h them. He hud not seen the police approaching, and would not have known the inspector }f he had seen him From the time of beini: asked to open the door Mil he opened it would be about a minute and a halt' He immediately told the inspector the men in the room were hoarders in the house. He did not consider he was called upon to show his b(.'o!:s. The officers were in plain clothes, and how was he to know who they were. To the magistrate: Had been a licensee for about nine years. He did not consider the police should come on to licensed premises in : plain clothes To Sub-Inspector Iluttou: He heard one or 1 two knocks ut the dour, but took no notice. It | was n«-t until he saw the inspector's face at the window and heard him say it was the police that he thought it was the police knocking. He admitted having been cross-examined in n previous case by Hub-Inspector Hutton, and also having been spoken to at Christmas time about the conduct of Ills business, but protested he did not recognise the man again. He said he had had 0110 or two drinks that night, but was perfectly sober. Ilis conduct was not extraordinary Itc-cxamincd by Mr. Johnstone, defendant said it was a common thing for him to hear I knocks at his door after closing time, Imt he tool: no notice of them Francis Montague Mills, farmer, Oxkura,; Save evidenc?. Regarding the failure to give his name when asked by the inspector, he said ; he d>d not recognise the officers, as they were i in plain clothes lie thought it was someone i having a ;iokc on thcr.i If he had known it wos the inspector ho would have acted very differently. The magistrate said the case presented some peculiarities It was very evident the defendant resented the police coming into his place in plain clothes, Ht) had admitted seeing the sub-Inspector at the window, and that it might have been a minuate and a half before he opened the c'oor when called upon to do to.

The opening of the door should not have taken more than a few seconds, Tin: defendant had taken up a very absurd attitude In resenting the visit of the police in plain clothes, He alio believed defendant had cautioned his boarder* not to give their names. There seemed, however, to be nothing going on in the room at the time that defendant needed to conceal, and his conduct had merely been that of resentment. He had, however, caused unnecessary delay' in admitting the Inspector, and on the first charge would be convicted nud fined £1 (costs 7sj. The second information was dismissed.